Aristotle - The Organon DE SOPHISTICIS ELENCHIS Section 3 Part 16

Sophistries must be answered as well as understood

\RbJbk{175}{a}

1.
We have now therefore dealt with the sources of questions, and the
methods of questioning in contentious disputations:
next we have to
speak of answering, and of how solutions should be made, and of what
requires them, and of what use is served by arguments of this kind.

2.
The use of them, then, is, for philosophy, twofold.
For in the first
place, since for the most part they depend upon the expression, they
put us in a better condition for seeing in how many senses any term
is used, and what kind of resemblances and what kind of differences
occur between things and between their names. In the second place
they are useful for one's own personal researches; for the man who
is easily committed to a fallacy by some one else, and does not perceive
it, is likely to incur this fate of himself also on many occasions.
Thirdly and lastly, they further contribute to one's reputation, viz.
the reputation of being well trained in everything, and not inexperienced
in anything: for that a party to arguments should find fault with
them, if he cannot definitely point out their weakness, creates a
suspicion, making it seem as though it were not the truth of the matter
but merely inexperience that put him out of temper.

3.
Answerers may clearly see how to meet arguments of this kind, if our
previous account was right of the sources whence fallacies came, and
also our distinctions adequate of the forms of dishonesty in putting
questions.
But it is not the same thing take an argument in one's
hand and then to see and solve its faults, as it is to be able to
meet it quickly while being subjected to questions: for what we know,
we often do not know in a different context. Moreover, just as in
other things speed is enhanced by training, so it is with arguments
too, so that supposing we are unpractised, even though a point be
clear to us, we are often too late for the right moment. Sometimes
too it happens as with diagrams; for there we can sometimes analyse
the figure, but not construct it again: so too in refutations, though
we know the thing on which the connexion of the argument depends,
we still are at a loss to split the argument apart.